The show has not delved into the subject of Jon Snow's parentage quite as much as the books.

Spoiler:

Including Jakerock's line about Ned never having claimed Jon as his son. jakerock, that line is from the book only. Refer to the 1st season 2nd episode where Ned in fact refers to Jon as being his son.

Let's be very careful about bringing a topic that has been discussed at length outside of the TV show to the TV show thread.

I just re watched the specific episode that you are referring to and Ned doesn't say that Jon is his son.

The king refers to "the mother of your bastard". Ned responds. I agree that makes it sound pretty darn obvious that Jon is Ned's son if you assume that Ned is literally admitting that Jon is his son outside of marriage instead of by taking on Jon he has taken him to be his bastard. Which could very well be me stretching things too far. But I believe that it was stated that way and Ned ducks the question for a reason. (Also I'm assuming that by definition if Jon isn't Ned's son that he's lying about it all the time so why would this time be different.)

But things are very complicated in Westeros and I don't think that the other tid bits we are given like when Ned specifically says that Jon's blood is family (vs just saying he's his son) are done simply to give Sean Bean an extra line to speak.

I just re watched the specific episode that you are referring to and Ned doesn't say that Jon is his son.

The king refers to "the mother of your bastard". Ned responds. I agree that makes it sound pretty darn obvious that Jon is Ned's son if you assume that Ned is literally admitting that Jon is his son outside of marriage instead of by taking on Jon he has taken him to be his bastard. Which could very well be me stretching things too far. But I believe that it was stated that way and Ned ducks the question for a reason. (Also I'm assuming that by definition if Jon isn't Ned's son that he's lying about it all the time so why would this time be different.)

But things are very complicated in Westeros and I don't think that the other tid bits we are given like when Ned specifically says that Jon's blood is family (vs just saying he's his son) are done simply to give Sean Bean an extra line to speak.

As I said I could very well be wrong.

Again I am spoilering because the topic leans more heavily on book than show knowledge, but

Spoiler:

The quote I was talking about in that episode is between Ned and Jon, and it seems I am not recalling it correctly either. Ned says you may not have my name, but you have my blood. So I was wrong in my recalling. Other than that line, the show has not touched on the topic. And for good reason. With the exception of a conversation that happens in the third book that I don't think will be on the show, most of the people who have revealed information pertaining to Jon Snow's parentage have been from thoughts (mostly Ned's) that people had.

Plus if the R+L theory is correct, then the scenes from Dany's time in the house of the undying left out some useful content.

In later books there are a few more actual conversations about the topic, but with all the information that the show has to squeeze in, I just don't see the matter being a big deal in the show like the fans of the books have made it outside of the show.

I'm so confused. Someone want to either spoilerize the answer or PM me if spoiler isn't appropriate in this thread...but now I must know....according to the books is he or is he not the biological child of Ned Stark? Or do we not know for sure? Is it even a question?

I'm so confused. Someone want to either spoilerize the answer or PM me if spoiler isn't appropriate in this thread...but now I must know....according to the books is he or is he not the biological child of Ned Stark? Or do we not know for sure? Is it even a question?

I'm so confused. Someone want to either spoilerize the answer or PM me if spoiler isn't appropriate in this thread...but now I must know....according to the books is he or is he not the biological child of Ned Stark? Or do we not know for sure? Is it even a question?

Here is what I know which isn't much and not much of a spoiler given how little I know.

Spoiler:

Nobody knows but there are a lot of book readers who think that it Ned isn't his father and lots of theories. There isn't much in the books that indicate anything significant that I remember. Except that in the books too, I think GRR Martin indicates things that make you wonder a little bit.

I understand what you're saying and why you think that. I just don't agree that Ned admitted as much as you think he did but I tend to be a stickler for exactly what people said vs. what can easily be inferred (but perhaps shouldn't be). So I could be wrong.

JakeRock, in Season 1 when Ned went out to see Jon Snow off(when he went to the wall), he said "You may not have my name, but you have my blood". Here is the clip from that moment. Starks have been manning the walls
Cat, a couple of episodes ago, just told Rob's wife the whole story Ned bringing Jon to Winterfell as a baby. She said specifically that she prayed to the gods that Jon would survive smallpox and, if he did, she was going to tell Ned to give Jon his name.

Sorry, but he's the child of Ned and some woman Ned met when he was off fighting. King Robert and Ned spoke of her in Season 1 when they were reminiscing under the tree.

Sorry, but he's the child of Ned and some woman Ned met when he was off fighting. King Robert and Ned spoke of her in Season 1 when they were reminiscing under the tree.

In that scene King Robert asks who the woman was that made Ned Stark forget his wedding vows, Ned avoided the question. We don't know why he avoided the question. Either Ned's ashamed, or there's something else going on. He also never actually says Jon Snow is from him, just his blood. Ned Stark had a brother and a sister. It's enough to question things, but not enough to say that Ned is or isn't the father.

I really don't think it's as ambiguous as some of you do, but it bears reminding that

Spoiler:

by virtue of his surname - Snow - we know that Jon is a bastard of a noble house of the North. Bastards that are not borne of at least half noble blood are given no surname at all. I guess you could believe that Ned gave him that surname as part of this vague conspiracy, but that would see, to go against his character to outright lie like that.

__________________“You know, sometimes all you need is 20 seconds of insane courage. Just, literally, 20 seconds of just embarrassing bravery. And I promise you, something great will come of it.”

I really don't think it's as ambiguous as some of you do, but it bears reminding that

Spoiler:

by virtue of his surname - Snow - we know that Jon is a bastard of a noble house of the North. Bastards that are not borne of at least half noble blood are given no surname at all. I guess you could believe that Ned gave him that surname as part of this vague conspiracy, but that would see, to go against his character to outright lie like that.

To reply to your spoiler in another spoiler...

Spoiler:

It's also against his oh-so-honorable character to have fathered a bastard in the first place. So much so that it's the one blemish that everyone comments on.

You are left with (a) he fathered a bastard shortly after marrying Caitlin Tully, or (b) he lied about who the bastard is.

Either choice is a problem for Ned Starks character.

__________________
Remember "Just Alley"? Re-read it To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts..

Please do not "Fixed Your Post" on my posts. I find that rude and annoying. Thank you for your consideration.

But I believe that it was stated that way and Ned ducks the question for a reason. (

Except he does't duck the question. Robert asks him the name, and Ned responds "Wylla". Robert says "You never did tell me what she looks like" and Ned responds "Nor will I". He's obviously embarassed about the whole thing and is not interested in gloating about it by telling Robert how big her tits were or whatever (the way Robert was just gloating over his whore Bessie). Robert was proud of his infidelities. Ned is not.

The story will (or won't) tell us who Jon's parents are. I certainly don't know. What I do know is that I'm not as certain as those of you who "know" the answer are.

Ned is is either lying (for unknown reasons) about Jon being his son or he cheated on Cat and fathered a boy while off at war and somehow came back with him with out anyone at home or way knowing what the heck was going on until he showed up. Ned certainly wants everyone to believe that Jon is his son and so listening to him isn't the most reliable source of information but he certainly could be telling the absolute truth.

It is entirely possible that we won't learn anything more about it in which case I'd have to say that him being Ned's bastard son is the really the simplest solution (and irrelevant at that point if it doesn't become a plot point).

What you have are two mediums for the same story. One has given more detail on the topic but not enough for anyone to know about Jon Snow's mom (or Dad). The TV show has brushed on the topic so lightly that I think only book readers would think it have any significance. Which is again why i caution bringing the topic up in the show thread. It really belongs over in the book readers thread.

What you have are two mediums for the same story. One has given more detail on the topic but not enough for anyone to know about Jon Snow's mom (or Dad). The TV show has brushed on the topic so lightly that I think only book readers would think it have any significance. Which is again why i caution bringing the topic up in the show thread. It really belongs over in the book readers thread.

True and fair enough. I got caught up when someone said (in the context of the show) that it was stated as fact. In my opinion even in the show there is room for doubt (but my doubt isn't objective and can't be distanced from what I foggily remember from the books).

On a related subject, I suddenly feel the need to express my frustration that soon this season will be over and that (I hope this isn't a spoiler to anyone) he's writing books so slowly at this point that we may never see the end of the series (books or shows). ARG!!!

On a related subject, I suddenly feel the need to express my frustration that soon this season will be over and that (I hope this isn't a spoiler to anyone) he's writing books so slowly at this point that we may never see the end of the series (books or shows). ARG!!!

Not an issue. Martin may never finish the books, but if the prospects for the HBO show remain good, they will finish the series. That may actually be a good thing, since Martin seems to have (temporarily? permanently?) lost the thread of the story. Maybe the HBO writers can produce a better ending than Martin can.

Not an issue. Martin may never finish the books, but if the prospects for the HBO show remain good, they will finish the series. That may actually be a good thing, since Martin seems to have (temporarily? permanently?) lost the thread of the story. Maybe the HBO writers can produce a better ending than Martin can.

I guess that is a positive way of looking at it. Of course it could just end up being a repeat of Deadwood.

Since I'm heavily invested in the story I'd really like him to finish it. Having said that the series has done an excellent job of keeping me (as a reader) very happy with how closely they've followed the themes and movements (if not the specific story details).

I'd really like him to get his act together, wrap this up in another few books in the next five years and let me get on with my life.

On a related subject, I suddenly feel the need to express my frustration that soon this season will be over and that (I hope this isn't a spoiler to anyone) he's writing books so slowly at this point that we may never see the end of the series (books or shows). ARG!!!

One point to add.. according to the producers, Martin has already told them how it ends. So even if they catch up to him, they have a roadmap of where to go. It might be interesting to see the book come out AFTER the show, with greater details.

I suppose I should also say that Martin has made a point that the two medium are telling somewhat different stories. Characters who are dead on the TV show are very much alive in the books and at least one will have a significant role in the next book. Yet that character being dead on TV means that story will have to change for the TV show.

So we should expect differences.

__________________
Remember "Just Alley"? Re-read it To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts..

Please do not "Fixed Your Post" on my posts. I find that rude and annoying. Thank you for your consideration.

One point to add.. according to the producers, Martin has already told them how it ends. So even if they catch up to him, they have a roadmap of where to go. It might be interesting to see the book come out AFTER the show, with greater details.

It could end up like Scott Pilgrim, where the movie ended up being written before O'Malley finished the comics & they couldn't wait for him any more. He told them how it ended, and they then changed the ending anyway (and then I believe he changed his ending as well).

On a related subject, I suddenly feel the need to express my frustration that soon this season will be over and that (I hope this isn't a spoiler to anyone) he's writing books so slowly at this point that we may never see the end of the series (books or shows). ARG!!!

In addition to what's been said, both S3 and S4 of the show will cover the plot from the third book, so that buys GRRM another year to get the books done. And they could do two seasons for future books as well.

Not an issue. Martin may never finish the books, but if the prospects for the HBO show remain good, they will finish the series. That may actually be a good thing, since Martin seems to have (temporarily? permanently?) lost the thread of the story. Maybe the HBO writers can produce a better ending than Martin can.

I have faith in Martin. His books are awesome and I'm sure he knows what ending he's working toward. That said, I would have no problem with the TV show getting ahead of the books as long as both eventually finish. While book 5 isn't as good as the first 3, I wouldn't say he's lost the thread of the story. He's just added a few more threads in there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ereth

I suppose I should also say that Martin has made a point that the two medium are telling somewhat different stories. Characters who are dead on the TV show are very much alive in the books and at least one will have a significant role in the next book. Yet that character being dead on TV means that story will have to change for the TV show.

I have faith in Martin. His books are awesome and I'm sure he knows what ending he's working toward.

I've never been worried about the ending. I just get the feeling he's gotten mired down in the middle. (Although the last book finally gives the impression that he's starting to get the pieces in place.)